Category Archives: Uncategorized

When most folks think about Estate Planning, they focus on who gets what along with who distributes what. In some cases, clients consider their taxes, but that often occurs only when their estate will exceed the Applicable Exclusion Amount (currently $12.92 million in 2023). Comprehensive Estate Planning focuses on the foregoing but encompasses much more. The first part of this two-part series explored the various tax considerations and the impact of state law on Estate Planning. This second part will focus on the non-tax aspects of Estate Planning.

A Revocable Trusts creates the foundation for an Estate Plan by providing numerous benefits. Revocable Trusts allow the grantor of the trust to maintain control of their assets while alive and provide privacy after death. To understand how that works, it’s important to understand what happens in the absence of a Revocable Trust. Normally, a Will determines the distribution of your assets upon your death and allows you to select an individual or company to make the disbursements. Nearly everyone understands this aspect of Estate Planning. The Will also allows for nomination of a guardian to care for minor children. If you do not have a Will, then your state’s intestacy laws will govern distribution of your assets at your death. There’s no guarantee that the state’s distribution pattern matches yours. Further, state intestacy laws may appoint a stranger to handle these important tasks. Finally, a court proceeding will determine who will care for your minor children. Again, without your input, the court may select someone whom you would not want caring for your children. It’s easy to see how a Will or intestacy laws lack flexibility and fail to meet certain needs.

Regardless of whether you have a Will or your state’s intestacy laws determine property division and distribution of your assets upon your death, the individual in charge must petition the court for permission to transact the business of your estate through a probate proceeding. Depending upon the laws of your state, probate can be a lengthy, costly, and public process. If you want to avoid probate and maintain your privacy, a Revocable Trust serves as a Will substitute and provides the opportunity for you to do that. With a Trust, you transfer the assets to the Trust during your lifetime and manage them as the Trustee. You avoid probate altogether by using a Trust because the Trust doesn’t die, only the individual dies. The Trust contains provisions regarding what happens upon the individual’s death and vests a successor Trustee with the power to make distributions from the Trust without court oversight. The Trust also protects against incapacity by giving a successor Trustee the power to make distributions from the Trust for your benefit should you become incapacitated. Due to cases of fraud, institutions more readily recognize a successor Trustee acting on your behalf than an agent under your Property Power of Attorney. Thus, a Revocable Trust provides several great non-tax benefits to individuals desiring to have privacy and continuity in their Estate Plan.

In addition to the above benefits, using a Revocable Trust provides a way to protect your beneficiaries. Certain types of beneficiaries, for example, minors, those with special needs, or who have creditor issues require assistance in receiving and managing an inheritance. Consider the individual who plans to rely upon state intestacy laws for distribution of their estate. Those laws make no exceptions based on the type of beneficiary receiving the assets. This means that a minor, special needs beneficiary, or spendthrift could end up receiving funds outright. Outright distribution could have disastrous consequences for any special needs beneficiary by making them ineligible for the benefits that they were receiving. Outright distribution causes issues for a minor child by requiring a guardianship for such child to receive the assets. A spendthrift will squander any funds left outright. As mentioned above, the distribution pattern may or may not match your intended plan of distribution. Creating a comprehensive Estate Plan, consisting of a Revocable Trust, Will, Property Power of Attorney, Health Care Power of Attorney, Living Will, and a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) Authorization avoids these consequences and gives the individual the ability to account for their own specific circumstances, be it a desire for privacy, protecting a particular beneficiary, or planning for incapacity.

Revocable Trusts also protect blended families. If either spouse has children from a prior marriage, establishing a trust allows that spouse to make distributions to those children on their death and/or create a trust for the surviving spouse that will be distributed to the children from the prior marriage upon the surviving spouse’s death. None of this is possible through the laws of intestacy. Finally, Revocable Trusts often contain provisions that help account for changes in circumstances through the inclusion of Trust Protector language. A Trust Protector may exercise certain powers to amend or change the Revocable Trust when the situation warrants it. For example, if tax consequences changed drastically and operating the trust as originally intended would be economically inefficient or cause undesired tax consequences, the Trust Protector can amend the Trust to provide a better result for the beneficiaries.

Estate Planning involves more than just who gets what when and who gives it to whom. It requires consideration of taxes applicable to an individual during life and to that individual’s estate at death. It also requires understanding the nature and character of assets in that individual’s estate as well as state law governing the title and disposition of assets. Finally, several non-tax considerations impact the shape of the plan as well. Privacy, continuity, and protection for certain beneficiaries, including those with special needs, minors, and spendthrifts all influence the plan. A comprehensive Estate Plan takes shape during life and grows and evolves as do your needs. I can help demystify these confusing concepts and guide you to a plan that accomplishes your goals in a tax-efficient manner.

When most folks think about Estate Planning, they focus on who gets what along with who distributes what. In cases in which an individual’s estate is not expected to exceed the Applicable Exclusion Amount, currently $12.92 million, taxes may simply be an afterthought. Comprehensive Estate Planning, though, encompasses much more than the foregoing. This is the first part in a two-part series that explores the various considerations, both tax and non-tax, for Estate Planning. When focusing on the tax aspects of Estate Planning, one considers the income, gift, and estate tax at both the federal and state level. At the federal level, we have a unified estate and gift tax system applicable to everyone. At the state level, taxes vary widely. Some states may impose estate, gift, inheritance, or income taxes. States diverge in the type of property they recognize and their property and sales tax rates as well, all of which should impact the planning undertaken.

If you live in a state that imposes an income tax, it’s important to understand what types of income your state taxes. Individuals at or nearing retirement prefer states that exclude Social Security benefits from taxation and that provide exemptions for other common forms of retirement income, such as private pensions or Individual Retirement Accounts (“IRAs”). These states generally have lower property and sales taxes that allow their residents to make the most of every dollar, which has become increasingly important as interest rates and food costs continue to rise.

Eight states, including Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming do not impose a state income tax. This protects a resident’s income from diminishment because of state income tax liabilities. Of those eight states, Florida, Nevada, Tennessee, and Wyoming impose neither an estate tax nor an inheritance tax. Nevada provides another advantage with a median property tax rate of just over $572 per $100,000 of home value. Unfortunately, Nevada has a combined state and local sales tax rate of 8.23%. Wyoming provides both a low combined state and local sales tax rate (5.22%) and a median property tax rate of $605 per $100,000 of home value.

Arizona, Alabama, Colorado, and South Carolina impose a state income tax, but none impose an estate or inheritance tax. Arizona, Alabama, and South Carolina all exempt Social Security benefits from state income taxes. Colorado exempts Social Security benefits from taxation at the state level if the retiree has attained the age of 65. South Carolina allows taxpayers aged 65 and over to exclude up to $10,000 of retirement income versus $3,000 for those under the age of 65. South Carolina also allows seniors to deduct $15,000 of other taxable income as well. Colorado’s combined state and local sales tax rate comes in at 7.77% and its median property tax rate is $505 per $100,000 of home value. South Carolina bests Colorado slightly with a combined state and local sales tax rate of 7.44% but has a slightly higher median property tax rate of $566 per $100,000 of home value. Alabama taxes IRA and 401(k) distributions but offsets that with a lower median property tax rate than nearly any other state in the nation at $406 per $100,000 of home value. Its average combined state and local sales tax rate is a bit high at 9.24%, but it allows anyone over the age of 65 to exempt the state portion of property taxes and allows lower-income residents an exemption from all property taxes on their principal residence.

Most states impose a tax on capital gains ranging between 2.9% in North Dakota to 13.3% in California. Alaska, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming do not tax capital gains. Of the states on the list that do not impose a tax on capital gains, New Hampshire stands alone in imposing a state income tax. Although it does not impose a state income tax, Washington recently passed legislation imposing a tax on capital gains at a rate of 7%. The legislation included a $250,000 standard deduction.

In addition to considering the potential estate, gift, inheritance, income, sales, and property taxes imposed by a state, individuals need to consider the types of ownership acknowledged in their state. For example, Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin all have community property. In addition, Alaska, Florida, Kentucky, South Dakota, and Tennessee allow their residents to elect into community property status for property held in a community property trust. In general terms, community property states consider the fruits of the labor of either spouse to belong to the community of their marriage, requiring equal access to the assets by both spouses. Community property provides a significant tax advantage by allowing a step-up in basis for all of the community property at the death of the first spouse, rather than just the decedent spouse’s assets, as would be the case in separate property or common law states. Community property states impose no restrictions on the distribution of the decedent spouse’s share of the community property, unlike separate property states.

While common law states do not permit residents to create community property, they provide other protections to a surviving spouse not found in community property states in the form of elective share rights. Typically, the surviving spouse may elect against the will of the predeceasing spouse to receive an intestate share of the estate. This amount depends upon many factors but often ends up around 1/3 of the “estate.” In some common law states, the spouse may elect against an augmented estate, which includes non-probate assets such as those found in a revocable trust. In other states, the survivor may only elect against the probate estate.

About one-half of the separate property states recognize “tenancy-by-the-entirety” or “TBE.” TBE requires unity of the interests of time, title, interest, possession, and marriage. Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and Oregon recognize TBE ownership for only real property. Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming all extend it to personal property as well. TBE property requires both spouses to encumber or sell the property and provides certain creditor protection if the creditor is only a creditor of one spouse. Understanding the protections and limitations of TBE ownership helps shape an estate plan in the separate property states that recognize that type of ownership.

As this article makes clear, Estate Planning involves more than just who gets what when and who gives it to whom. It requires consideration of taxes applicable to an individual during life and to that individual’s estate at death. It also requires understanding the nature and character of assets in that individual’s estate as well as state law governing the title and disposition of assets.

In an effort to make things easier for their loved ones, people sometimes enter into prepaid funeral contracts. The idea is that you pay for all of your own funeral and burial or cremation expenses in advance. When you pass away, your family notifies the service and the service handles everything.

When you enter into the contract you will have the opportunity to make specific choices with regard to the details of your funeral and burial or cremation. The service is legally compelled to deliver in accordance with the terms of the contract.

A Closer Look
This may sound like a simple solution on the surface. However, there are significant problems with these prepaid funeral contracts. For one thing, there are companies with unscrupulous intentions. These services are required by law to place payments into trusts or insurance policies. This doesn’t always happen. When the assets remain in hand, the people behind the service can abscond when the time is right.

Short of flat-out robbery, prepaid funeral services can take advantage of clients in other ways. Shortchanging would be one of them. For example, you could pay for a casket of a certain quality in advance. A far inferior product could ultimately be delivered. Or, you may pay for a certain number of limousines of a particular size. An entirely different assemblage of vehicles may arrive. Floral arrangements may come up short of the mark, and other shortcuts may be taken.

If you were to enter into a prepaid funeral contract in one area of the country and die elsewhere, you may ultimately receive nothing for your money. The contract could be tied to services provided by specific local entities.

Avoid the Middle Man
When you enter into a prepaid funeral contract you are paying someone to make arrangements that could be made directly. As a result, you are paying more for the actual products and services because the intermediary must make a profit. This is why prepaid funeral services exist. Because of the middle man you are overpaying from the start. You are also surrendering the opportunity to earn interest on the money that you have set aside for your final arrangements.

Viable Alternative
Instead of entering into a prepaid funeral contract, you could place adequate resources into a payable-on-death account. You name a trusted heir as the beneficiary. All of your heirs should be aware of this arrangement. After you pass away, the beneficiary assumes ownership of the resources in the account. Probate is not a factor, so the assets are immediately available to cover your final expenses. If you discuss your preferences with your beneficiary in advance, he or she will carry out your specific wishes when the time comes.

If you go this route there will be no surprises. Everything will go according to plan as you leave behind a turnkey, risk-free postmortem situation.

The Biden Administration recently released its budget proposals for 2024. Of the fourteen proposals listed, two could impact estate planning, if signed into law. This article will focus on the first such proposal which relates to distributions from an Individual Retirement Account (“IRA”). The Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) allows taxpayers under the age of 50 to contribute up to $6,500 to their IRAs in 2023. Taxpayers over the age of 50 may contribute an additional $1,000. The numbers adjust for inflation each year. If the taxpayer contributes excess funds to their IRA and does not withdraw the excess amount along with any income attributable thereto prior to the tax filing deadline, then such taxpayer would be subject to an annual excise tax. If the taxpayer contributes to a traditional IRA, then the taxpayer may contribute pre-tax dollars and would include distributions from the IRA in income when received. Taxpayers contributing to Roth IRAs do not report the distributions as income because contributions consist of post-tax dollars.

Under current law, distributions from traditional IRAs begin April 1 in the year after the taxpayer has attained age 73. At that time, the taxpayer needs to withdraw a Required Minimum Distribution (“RMD”) amount annually. Taxpayers and their advisors calculate RMDs based upon tables promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service that use life expectancy to determine the distribution factor. That factor is applied to the account balance as of December 31 of the prior year to produce the RMD for that year. When the taxpayer takes their RMD or otherwise withdraws funds from their IRA, they include those amounts in their income. For that reason, many taxpayers wait until they have reached age 73 to begin withdrawing funds from their IRAs thereby deferring income as long as possible and allowing the funds in the IRA to grow without generating income tax. Taxpayers with Roth IRAs may begin withdrawing penalty-free once they have attained age 59 ½ and have held the account for at least five years but Roth IRAs have no RMDs.

These rules do not consider the value of the IRA and depend solely upon the age of the participant as the trigger for distributions. One aspect of President Biden’s revenue proposals aims to change that. The proposal titled “Modify Rules Relating to Retirement Plans” will require any high-income taxpayer with an aggregate vested account balance under tax-favored retirement arrangements that exceeds $10 million as of the last day of the preceding calendar year to distribute a minimum of 50% of the excess amount. If the aggregate value exceeds $20 million, then the taxpayer needs to withdraw the lesser of the excess amount or the portion of the taxpayer’s aggregate vested account balance that is held in Roth IRA or designated Roth account. Thus, if a taxpayer had $15 million in their tax-favored accounts, then this proposal would require distribution of $2.5 million in addition to any RMD otherwise required.

Tax-favored arrangements include defined contribution plans, annuity contracts under Code Section 403(b), eligible deferred compensation plans under Code Section 457(b) maintained by a state, political subdivision thereof, or an agency or instrumentality of a state or political subdivision thereof, and IRAs. The proposal defines high income as modified adjusted gross income of $450,000 for married filing jointly, $425,000 for head of household, and $400,000 in all other cases, all adjusted for inflation. The taxpayer may choose which tax-favored retirement arrangement from which to withdraw the funds; however, if the taxpayer has funds in a Roth vehicle, those funds need to be distributed first. Distributions resulting from this proposal are in addition to amounts withdrawn as RMDs for any particular year but applies even if the taxpayer is not otherwise required to be taking RMDs. Failure to take this distribution subjects the taxpayer to the 25% excise tax on the portion not taken. Thankfully, the penalty on early distributions does not apply to these excess amounts. The taxpayers cannot use the funds for a rollover. The proposal requires plan administrators to report the vested account balance for all tax-favored retirement arrangements for high income taxpayers that exceeds $2.5 million, as adjusted for inflation. This proposal is for tax years beginning after December 31, 2023.

As mentioned above, the Biden Administration released another revenue proposal of interest to Estate Planning attorneys called “Improve Tax Administration for Trust and Decedents’ Estates.” While it’s interesting to review these proposals, it’s important to remember that they are just that:  proposals and have not yet become the law. It appears unlikely that Congress would enact these proposals given the current Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Of course, even if you aren’t concerned with application of these revenue proposals, it’s always a good time to talk me about your Estate Plan.

When you are thinking about your estate planning process, you will want to establish an estate plan that not only meets your needs but also makes the most sense for you based on your current stage of life. As you think about what you want your estate to entail, it’s likely that you have heard about both wills and trusts.

Wills and trusts are distinctly different legal documents, but if you think that wills and trusts have a lot in common, you are correct! There is a lot of overlap between the two. For instance, they both identify the people who will receive your assets in your absence, but the documents do so in their own ways.

As an example, one main difference between wills and trusts is when they take effect. Wills are not implemented until after you die, whereas a trust goes into effect immediately upon being signed and funded.

If you were to become incapacitated to the point that you are unable to make your own decisions, a will cannot step in to provide any recourse or plan in response to your new circumstances.

Even so, wills can allow you to do the following:

• Name guardians for your children and your pets.
• Designate where your assets will go once you are gone.
• Specify the details of your final arrangements.

Wills offer a beautiful simplicity to the estate planning process, but wait — there are drawbacks as well.

Keep these details in mind:

• Wills offer limited control over the distribution of your assets.
• In most cases, wills require some sort of probate process.
• Wills are public documents, so if there is any information you would prefer to keep private, consider opting for a trust instead.
• Trusts are more complicated than wills, but how do they differ? Trusts, in particular:

• Provide control regarding not only how your assets will be distributed but when they will be distributed as well.
• Are available in more than one form.
• Help you minimize the chances of going to probate if not evading it altogether.
• Come with private distribution of assets.

So you could say that trusts are more complicated to set up than wills are, but if avoiding probate is your goal, setting up a trust is wise.

Having it both ways

Is it possible to have it both ways? Can you draw up both a will and a trust? The answer is yes. While trusts are designed to establish what will happen to your assets, wills give you the opportunity to denote people to serve as guardians for your children, appoint a trustworthy executor for the management of your estate and define your final wishes.

Trusts also differ from wills because while trusts are primarily crafted for the sake of taking care of your estate after you have died, they can also be influential when you are still alive. Alternatively, wills are only put into effect posthumously. But what about how these documents can be contested?

For starters, wills are more likely to be challenged because they can become outdated. They can also be combatted with the claim that the will was made at a point in time when you were not fully of sound mind.

Another possibility is that wills could be contested under the assumption that they were created while you were under the influence of someone else. On the other hand, trusts are far less likely to be contested due to their lack of an expiration date.

Another detail that differentiates wills and trusts is that wills do not offer anyone protections from creditors nor do they come with tax benefits. Dissimilarly, an irrevocable trust is a type of trust that cannot be changed, and it serves the purpose of removing assets from your estate, meaning irrevocable trusts offer both protection from creditors and benefits in a financial sense.

Despite their numerous discrepancies, wills and trusts are both legal instruments that focus on making sure that your assets are allocated to your heirs and according to your wishes. Trusts require more paperwork to establish than wills do, and trusts are typically more expensive to prepare than wills.

Where should you go from here?

Establishing clear expectations and documenting them in written form will significantly benefit your loved ones in your absence. Both trusts and wills are avenues that you can make use of when outlining what you would like to have happen regarding your end-of-life wishes.

Ultimately, the main difference between wills and trusts has to do with the work involved with establishing them. For instance, wills are regarded as lower maintenance than trusts, as they are usually in need of updates every three to five years. On the other hand, trusts must be updated every time a major life event takes place, such as marriage or the birth of a child.

So what’s the takeaway here? As always, talk to me and to financial advisers who can assist you as you figure out which instruments are best for you and your situation. That way, with a personalized approach to your estate planning process, you can ensure that your long-term goals are met.

I remember the shock I felt in 2008 when I learned that my bank, Washington Mutual, collapsed after a 9-day bank run. Thankfully, J.P. Morgan Chase bought the banking subsidiaries and most depositors continued with the new bank as though nothing had happened. Fifteen years later, not one, but three, banks have failed in one week’s time. Leaders are working hard to differentiate the events of the last week from those in 2008, but similarities exist.

Trouble started when Silvergate, a California-based bank that loaned funds to cryptocurrency companies, announced that it would liquidate its assets and cease operations. Concern grew when a few days later the Federal Deposit Insurance Company (“FDIC”) took over Silicon Valley Bank, taking almost $175 billion in customer deposits under its control. A large number of uninsured deposits, many held by small businesses, only exacerbated that concern sending shockwaves through the banking industry over the weekend when banks are typically closed. That fear lead to a Sunday night announcement that yet another bank, Signature Bank, shuttered its doors. The Federal Reserve, Treasury, and FDIC gave a joint statement that “depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13” to calm investors and prevent panic from reverberating throughout the banking industry. If investors feared for the safety of their deposits in other banks and began to withdraw their money that could prompt a system-wide failure. The aggressive move of covering all deposits, even those that exceed the FDIC insured amount, means that the regulators have decided the risk to the banking system merits invoking an exception to the rule that the FDIC covers the failure by the least expensive means. The Deposit Insurance Fund will cover the funds not covered by the FDIC through the fees it collects from the banking industry.

Interesting, no doubt, but what does all of this have to do with Estate Planning? A great deal, it turns out. I have fielded many a question from a client regarding how much of their funds will be insured by the FDIC, especially when the plan involves one or more trusts. Last year, the FDIC issued updated rules regarding insured accounts designed to simplify the system.

Under the current rules, which remain in place until April 1, 2024, the FDIC insures deposits up to $250,000 per depositor, per ownership category, per institution. Assume that Johnny has $250,000 in BigBank and no other accounts anywhere. Should BigBank fail, the FDIC covers the entire amount. The same holds true if instead, Johnny titled his account in his revocable trust. Things change a bit if Johnny dies. Upon Johnny’s death, the assets in trust will pass to his daughter, Lyla. In that situation, the FDIC would insure up to $250,000 per institution, per trust beneficiary, up to a maximum of 5 beneficiaries for a total of $1,250,000. The rules look to the primary beneficiaries of the trust, which the FDIC defines as those individuals who would take upon the death of the grantor of the trust. The rules do not count contingent beneficiaries and more remote beneficiaries. In the above example, one beneficiary means that the FDIC protects the entire $250,000.

If Johnny had $500,000 in the account with BigBank, the FDIC would protect only $250,000. He could, however, transfer $250,000 to HugeBank thereby doubling the protected amount because it’s at a different institution. If Johnny had 5 children, all of whom were the beneficiaries of his revocable trust upon his death, then the FCID would insure $1,250,000 (5 x $250,000). If he had funds in excess of that $1,250,000, then he should transfer the overage to a new bank, keeping in mind that the FDIC insures no more than $250,000, per institution, per beneficiary, up to a maximum of $1,250,000 regardless of additional beneficiaries or funds. If Johnny were married and had a joint revocable trust, assuming that five beneficiaries took upon the death of both grantors, then the FDIC would cover up to $2,500,000 at any one institution.

Now assume that Johnny created an irrevocable trust. FDIC insurance works the same for all identified non-contingent beneficiaries as it does for a revocable trust covering up to $250,000 per institution, per trust beneficiary, up to a maximum of 5 beneficiaries for a total of $1,250,000. If the trust names contingent beneficiaries, however, then the rules add those contingent interests together and insure up to a maximum of $250,000, regardless of the number of beneficiaries or the allocation of the funds among the beneficiaries. To demonstrate, let’s assume that Johnny has 5 children, 4 of whom hold contingent interests in the trust making Lyla’s interest the only non-contingent interest. If Johnny has $600,000 in BigBank, the FDIC will cover only $500,000, $250,000 for Lyla, and $250,000 for the collective contingent interests, even though there are 4 beneficiaries.

Note that if the funds in an account represent both contingent and non-contingent interests, then the FDIC would separate those interests and apply the rules as described above. It’s easy to see how multiple trusts complicate these rules. Interestingly, according to the FDIC, it receives more inquiries related to insurance coverage for trusts than all other types of deposits combined. As noted earlier, to simplify the rules, the FDIC issued new rules on January 21, 2022, with a delayed effective date of April 1, 2024.

The new rules merge the categories for revocable and irrevocable trusts and use a simpler, more consistent approach to determine coverage. Now, each grantor’s trust deposits will be insured up to the standard maximum amount of $250,000, multiplied by the number of beneficiaries of the trust, not to exceed five. It no longer matters whether the trust is revocable or irrevocable or whether the interests are contingent or fixed. These rules effectively limit coverage for a grantor’s deposits at each institution to $1,250,000 for a single grantor trust and $2,500,000 for a joint trust, assuming that there are five beneficiaries of such trusts. The streamlined rules provide depositors and bankers guidance that’s easy to understand and will facilitate the prompt payment of deposit insurance, when necessary.

While depositors in Silicon Valley Bank were covered in excess of FDIC coverage, there’s no guarantee the FDIC will cover depositors in excess of the insurance coverage next time. If you are concerned about FDIC coverage for trust accounts, or in general, let me know. I can help you understand current coverage levels and advise you regarding any moves that you should make now or in the future to receive maximum FDIC insurance coverage.

A recent National Public Radio (“NPR”) article discussed one family’s experience with the Medicaid estate recovery program, something many elderly Americans and their families face. When the matriarch of the family received a diagnosis of Lewy body dementia, a case manager from the Area Agency on Aging suggested that the family explore the state’s “Elderly Waiver” program to help pay expenses not otherwise covered by Medicare or the family’s health insurance. The family completed the necessary paperwork without understanding that the program was a branch of Medicaid because the forms indicated that the program was designed to help “keep people at home and not in a nursing home.” Imagine the family’s shock when they received a letter shortly after the matriarch’s death that the state would seek reimbursement for the funds spent on her care. At first, the family thought it was fake, but they soon found out that it was real and that the agency was seeking reimbursement as required by federal law. Some of the funds that the family received were paid to the daughter as income for her mother’s care. She paid income taxes on those funds and now needs to help her dad figure out how to pay them back. Their biggest asset, the family home, is worth approximately one-third of the total amount sought for recovery. Of course, the agency can only recover half the total value of the home because the decedent owned it jointly with her surviving spouse. Further, the agency cannot seek reimbursement for any of the funds it expended until after the surviving spouse’s death. This scenario resonates deeply with many families.

Most folks understand that Medicaid is a partnership between the federal government and each individual state designed to provide medical benefit assistance to those over the age of 65 who have a financial need. The program defines financial need as income and assets below a certain amount. Most states require the Medicaid applicant to have an income of no more than $2,742/month. Thankfully, states impose no such limitation on the spouse of the applicant, thus the non-applicant spouse could have $15,000 in income without disqualifying their applicant spouse. Further, if the well or “community” spouse does not have enough in their own income, then a portion of the applicant spouse’s income may be allocated to the community spouse. This protection, called the Minimum Monthly Maintenance Needs Allowance (“MMMNA”), helps shield the well spouse from impoverishment. In most states, the maximum amount of income that can be allocated from the Medicaid applicant spouse to the well spouse is $3,715.50/month. Note that the income of the non-applicant spouse when combined with the spousal income allowance cannot exceed that amount.

Determining whether an applicant meets the asset test requires more analysis. First, states divide assets into countable assets and exempt assets. Exempt assets usually include things like the home, household furnishings, retirement accounts, life insurance, and the car used for medical transport. Available resources mean everything else. Second, if the applicant is married, then all assets, regardless of whose name the assets are held, count for purposes of determining eligibility for Medicaid. Generally, an individual needs to have less than $2,000 in “available” resources. Like under the income requirements, the non-applicant spouse has additional protection called the Community Spouse Resource Allowance (“CSRA”). Each state determines which assets will count as “available” within federal guidelines and which assets to exclude as well as the amount of the CSRA. The federal government sets the minimum ($29,724) and maximum ($148,620) amount and states (Illinois is $123,600.00 for a married couple) decide which number in that range they want to use. If the assets cannot be used for an applicant’s benefit, such as assets in an irrevocable trust, then those assets generally don’t count as an available resource.

There are several ways that an individual may lower their countable assets. Many people seeking to avail themselves of Medicaid assistance establish irrevocable trusts to hold their assets to keep those assets from being counted. The trust principal cannot benefit the Grantor, if it does, then it’s considered an available resource. The trustee of the trust invests the principal. Sometimes the Grantor retains the right to income generated from the trust, but the Trustee has discretion to distribute the principal to other individuals, such as the Grantor’s children. Upon the Grantor’s death, the trust agreement dictates the division and distribution of the assets in the trust. A Medicaid trust is by no means the answer to every problem, but it’s a great solution for many families. Some families fail to consider undertaking this planning until it’s too late. If they create a trust too close in time to when they apply for Medicaid, then they will be subject to a “penalty period” during which time they will need to cover their medical expenses.

Qualifying for Medicaid alone does not end a family’s concerns. Once they have an individual qualified, they need to worry about repayment. The federal government requires each state to seek recovery of funds spent through the Medicaid Estate Recovery Program (“MERP” or “MER”). Each state must seek repayment from the decedent’s probate estate, but the state has the option to attempt recovery from assets outside the probate estate as well. As part of the recovery process, Medicaid can place a lien on the Medicaid recipient’s home in some states and some circumstances. A qualified Estate Planning attorney can help a family work through what assets will be subject to reimbursement and how to plan for it.

Medicaid planning requires an understanding of the concepts explained above as well as Estate Planning generally. Due to a five-year lookback on uncompensated transfers, setting up a Medicaid trust far in advance of needing the care is a great way to give you and your family peace of mind.

America’s favorite tough guy, Bruce Willis, recently received a diagnosis of Frontotemporal Dementia or FTD which destroys the brain’s frontal or temporal lobes. The condition strikes individuals between ages 45 and 64 and is the most common form of dementia for those under 60. His diagnosis brings into sharp focus the importance of planning for incapacity. Unfortunately, incapacity planning often takes a backseat to planning for what happens upon death because death is certain, but incapacity is not. Its uncertain nature, however, makes planning for that possibility all the more important.

Incapacity, much like death, doesn’t care about your age, your health, or your family. It strikes without rhyme or reason and often, without warning. When incapacity occurs unexpectedly, it leaves loved ones scrambling for solutions. If the incapacitated individual failed to plan properly for incapacity, the family may be forced to undertake a guardianship proceeding to have the individual declared incompetent and a guardian appointed. Guardianship proceedings are sometimes referred to as “living probate” because the proceeding involves many of the same issues of probate only with incapacity the loved one is alive, not dead.

Let’s look at an example. John decided that he wanted to move closer to his elderly parents. He listed his home for sale and on his way back from a meeting with the realtor, was involved in an automobile accident and rendered unable to manage his affairs. One of John’s neighbors knew of John’s desire to sell his home and thought it would be a perfect place for his sister who was looking to relocate. The neighbor’s sister made an offer over asking price; however, because John was incapacitated and had not created a plan to deal with incapacity, no one had the legal authority to accept the offer. His family petitioned the court to have him declared incapacitated and someone appointed as his legal guardian. The process was difficult because John’s family disagreed about who should be appointed guardian. The disagreement played out in the courtroom and unflattering information about John and his family emerged. Unfortunately, by the time a guardian was appointed, the neighbor’s sister withdrew her offer. Shortly thereafter, home values began falling and John’s family waited several months before another buyer made an offer for significantly less than the previous offer and even less than the asking price.

While the example above seems extreme, it isn’t. Situations like this occur every day. What are some of the things that John should have done to prevent this result?

First, John should have created a Property Power of Attorney. A Property Power of Attorney allows the principal (John) to designate an “Agent” and one or more successors to make decisions inherent to the Principal on their behalf during life. The Property Power of Attorney may give the Agent immediate power to make these decisions, even if the Principal is not incapacitated when the Agent is making the decision. Most states also give the Principal the option to make the Property Power of Attorney “springing,” meaning that the Agent’s powers “spring” into action only upon incapacity of the Principal. If anyone refers to the Property Power of Attorney as “durable” that means the Property Power of Attorney continues to be effective notwithstanding the Principal’s incapacity. Any Property Power of Attorney that is not durable prohibits the Agent from acting during the Principal’s incapacity.

In addition to the Property Power of Attorney, John should have prepared a Healthcare Power of Attorney. The Healthcare Power of Attorney allows the Principal to appoint an Agent to make medical decisions if the Principal is unable to make those decisions; however, the Agent cannot veto any medical decision of the Principal. In conjunction with the Healthcare Power of Attorney, John should have signed a HIPAA Authorization which allows one or more designated individuals to receive information that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 mandates be kept confidential. While it’s important to keep healthcare information confidential, people acting on behalf of others need access to this information and the HIPAA Authorization provides that.

Finally, John should have created a Revocable Trust. A Revocable Trust serves as a Will substitute, maintains the Trustor’s privacy, requires little or no court oversight, and provides significant flexibility. If John had transferred his home to a Revocable Trust, then upon his incapacity, the successor Trustee would have stepped into John’s shoes to manage the property. The successor Trustee would have had the legal authority to accept the offer on John’s home, conclude the sale, and then use the proceeds for John’s continued care. This would have added a layer of protection and smoothed the way for a sale of John’s home. Often, financial institutions hesitate to rely upon a Property Power of Attorney for real estate due to fraud, especially if the Property Power of Attorney was executed more than 2 years prior. The Revocable Trust sidesteps the issue altogether.

Regardless of the duration of incapacity, it’s important to include incapacity planning as part of a comprehensive Estate Plan. Statistics estimate that over 7 million people aged 65 and older have dementia. This statistic alone should scare all of us into undertaking incapacity planning. While planning for disposition of your estate upon your death is important, planning for the management of your assets and health during periods of incapacity is even more critical. As our life expectancies increase, so do the chances that we or someone we love will experience incapacity. Incapacity takes an emotional and physical toll both on the incapacitated individual and their loved ones. A seamless Estate Plan eases those burdens and the resulting emotional strain and allows everyone involved to focus on recovery and the next steps.

On December 14, 2022, President Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act (the “Act”) repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”). The Act mandates that all states, United States territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the federal government (hereinafter “States” or “State”) must recognize as valid any marriage between two individuals if such marriage was valid in the State where such marriage occurred. Pursuant to the Act, no person, acting under color of State law may deny the laws of any other State pertaining to an act, record, judicial proceeding, right, or claim, arising from a marriage between two individuals based upon the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals. Further, the Act contains provisions allowing for enforcement of these civil rights by the United States Attorney General or a private person harmed by a violation of the Act. The Act does not require recognition of polygamous marriages, nor does it require religious organizations to solemnize or celebrate marriages that violate their principles.

It’s important to understand the history and evolution of Estate Planning for same-sex couples. When President Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996, that legislation denied federal recognition of same-sex marriage by limiting the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman. That allowed states to refuse to honor same-sex marriages even when those marriages occurred in states that permitted same-sex marriage. Thus, if a couple married in a state that permitted same-sex marriage, then moved to another that did not, the couple needed to restructure their estate plan as though they were unmarried after moving into the new state. Further, DOMA prohibited recognition of same-sex marriages on a federal level depriving same-sex spouses of several benefits including receipt of social security survivor benefits, filing joint tax returns, and preventing gift and estate tax-free transfers between spouses. Under DOMA if a spouse wanted to give their estate to their same-sex spouse, that transfer would be subject to federal estate tax if the amount of the gift exceeded the decedent spouse’s remaining applicable exclusion amount. The applicable exclusion amount in 1996 was $600,000. Thus, anytime a spouse of the same sex as their spouse gifted that spouse more than $600,000 either during life or at death, the transfer was subject to gift or estate tax.

That did not change until the 2013 decision of United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) which held that DOMA violated the Due Process Clause and therefore was unconstitutional to the extent it denied federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) went a step further when it required states to license and recognize same-sex marriage. After Windsor, the federal government had to give a same-sex couple the same benefits as a heterosexual couple. After Obergefell, any same-sex couple could marry in any state and could relocate without jeopardizing their marriage and their Estate Planning based upon it. Between Windsor and Obergefell, it seemed that DOMA had been gutted, and same-sex married couples had the same rights and benefits afforded to heterosexual married couples. The most significant being the ability to make unlimited gifts to a spouse during life or at death without gift or estate tax liability. Those benefits continued without question until the Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022).

When the Supreme Court decided Dobbs, it did so on the basis that the rights at issue were not fundamental because the rights had no basis in the Constitution or our country’s history. Many questioned whether other rights not explicitly granted in the Constitution, such as same-sex marriage, could be in jeopardy. Although the majority opinion in Dobbs indicated that the holding applied only to Dobbs, when Justice Clarence Thomas wrote “because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established by those precedents” in his concurring opinion in Dobbs, many took note and thought that signaled a possible future reversal of Windsor and Obergefell and wondered if Estate Planning for same-sex couples needed to revert to pre-2013 planning. The Act makes clear that it does not. Marriage is marriage under state and federal law.

Former President Jimmy Carter revealed on February 18 that he is going home from the hospital to live out the rest of his 98-year life on hospice. Back in 2015, when President Carter was diagnosed with metastatic skin cancer, I wrote a post encouraging him to set an example and go on hospice care. He instead pursued an experimental treatment that gave him eight more years of life. And that’s okay – good for him!

The news coverage over the weekend make it sound as if by going on hospice, he’s already dead. No wonder people are afraid of hospice. The problem is, most people wait too long to take advantage of the benefits of hospice. Too often, people go on hospice when they are literally at death’s door.

The guidelines for starting hospice care is a medical condition with a likelihood of causing the patient’s death within six months. Curiously, old age is not a valid diagnosis for hospice care.

Hospice is a specialized form of medical care that aims to provide comfort, support, and dignity to people who are in the final stages of a terminal illness. The primary goal of hospice care is to alleviate the physical, emotional, and spiritual pain and suffering of patients, as well as to provide support to their families and loved ones.

Hospice care can be provided in various settings, including the patient’s home, a hospice facility, a hospital, or a nursing home. Hospice care teams are typically interdisciplinary, including medical professionals, nurses, social workers, chaplains, and volunteers who work together to provide a holistic approach to care.

Care often involves managing pain and symptoms, providing emotional and spiritual support, and assisting with practical needs such as daily activities and end-of-life planning. The focus of hospice care is on the quality of life rather than the length of life, and the care is tailored to the individual needs and wishes of the patient and their family.

There’s a meme making the rounds on social media with a quote from Carter: “I have one life and one chance to make it count for something… My faith demands that I do whatever I can, wherever I am, whenever I can, for as long as I can, with whatever I have to try to make a difference.”

I hope Jimmy Carter’s choice of hospice at this point provides a teachable moment for society at large.